During the buildup to the Iraq war,
placards nationwide read: "War is not the answer." Some
people asked: "Then what is the answer?" Public
opinion polls at the time disclosed a powerful reality that our
ethics has been overlooking: Just arguing no to a war, without
providing a clear alternative, is a sure way to lose the national
debate.

Americans initially supported every
war in the 20th century. They initially supported even the
Vietnam War, which failed all eight criteria of just war theory
and which ultimately was viewed as a mistake by80 percent
of Americans. So it is no surprise that a majority supported the
Iraq war near its beginning (albeit with the lowest initial
support for a war in the last 100 years of American war-making).

In his book War, Presidents, and Public
Opinion, political scientist John Mueller analyzed polling
data surrounding the Korean and the Vietnam Wars. His data
indicate that some 20 percent of Americans will support any
American war out of national loyalty - the
"rally-round-the-flag" factor. Another17
percent initially support a war because the president supports it
- the "deference-to-authority" factor. When a war
actually begins, this factor doubles to about 35 percent - the
"support-our-troops factor." Then there is the
"threat-from-the-enemy" factor - worth about 16 percent
when the phrase "to stop the communist invasion" was
added to survey questions during the Korean War. Presidents
regularly dramatize or even exaggerate the threat posed by the
enemy, as President Bush did in claiming that Iraq had extensive
weapons of mass destruction and had connections with al Qaeda.
When these factors are added together, it is abundantly clear why
a majority of Americans initially support wars of recent
history, even wars that turned out badly.

If people see that a war is not working out
well, support declines. The Korean War and the Vietnam War
eventually became widely unpopular, and the parties in power lost
their next presidential bids. So did the elder President Bush,
after Iraq continued to be a problem and U.S. deficits and
unemployment grew.

What does win the national debate?
Articulating a clear alternative to the war does much better.
Especially when it deals with the cause or threat and advocates a
peacemaking alternative that has proven effective in other cases.

During the buildup to the current Iraq war,
much of the peace movement focused on a clear alternative:
"Let the inspections work." The pollsters noticed. In
February and March 2003, the CBS News Poll asked, "Should
the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon,
or should the United States wait and give the United Nations
weapons inspectors more time?" Respondents preferred the
clear alternative of giving inspectors more time by a ratio of
almost two to one.

That debate - about a clear alternative to
the war - was won by the wars opponents, assisted by
reports from the U.N. inspection team that weapons of mass
destruction were not being found and that Iraq was cooperating
with the inspectors demands for overflights, for immediate
access anywhere, and for destruction of some missiles whose range
slightly exceeded the limit. Therefore the White House shifted
its argument at the last minute from the alleged threat of the
elusive weapons of mass destruction to the dictatorship of Saddam
Hussein and a promise to bring democracy and human rights to
Iraq. That shift meant President Bush had to commit himself to
the "nation-building" that he had previously opposed.

If the question is simply whether or not to
support a war that the president advocates, majorities initially
will regularly support the president. Posing the ethical question
that way is basically a guaranteed way to lose the national
debate. An ethic that focuses on "just say no," as
pacifism and just war theory do if they are not assisted by an
ethic of constructive peacemaking, is a recipe for losing the
debate.

A constructive alternative has a much
better chance. Jesus didnt just say no to anger and
revengeful resistance, but commanded transforming initiatives: Go
make peace with your brother or sister; go the second mile with
the Roman soldier (Matt 5:21-25, 38-42). Christians need
something more than an ethic of "just say no"; we need
an ethic of constructive peacemaking.

JUST PEACEMAKING theory - the new paradigm
for an ethics of peace and war developed by a consensus of 23
Christian ethicists and international relations scholars - shifts
the debate to constructive alternatives. It focuses on 10
practices that have demonstrated their efficacy in toppling
dictators and ameliorating causes of war without the killing and
chaos of war (see box, page 20). For example, the practice of
nonviolent direct action toppled Marcos in the Philippines, and
East Germanys Eric Honecker and his Berlin Wall, without a
single death.

A month before the Iraq war began, U.S.
church leaders (including Sojourners editor-in-chief Jim
Wallis) articulated a six-point alternative to the war that fit
the practices of just peacemaking theory. The genius of their six
points was that they addressed the evil of Saddams
dictatorship directly and proposed a way to depose him without
killing Iraqs people and without the destruction and chaos
of the wars aftermath. The proposal developed broad support
in England, including in the British cabinet, and with a little
more time could have developed the momentum to prevent the war.

The "six point plan" and its
implementation of just peacemaking theory should be seen as part
of a new paradigm of peacemaking ethics that can guide us in
future debates about war. Noticing how it exemplified just
peacemaking theory helps us see how it can be a compass for
future pathfinding in times of conflict, a creative exemplar of
an emerging ethic.

First, the plan said, the U.N. Security
Council should indict Saddam Hussein for war crimes and crimes
against humanity and demand that he be tried in an international
court. This implements the just peacemaking practice of supporting
the United Nations and international efforts for human rights,
which have helped to topple several dictators and prevent
numerous wars. Second, the plan called for strengthening the
inspections process and monitoring Iraqs borders for
weapons. These measures reflect the just peacemaking practice of reducing
offensive weapons and weapons trade.

Third, the plan advocated that the process
of organizing democracy in Iraq after Saddam be led by the United
Nations. The determination to foster democratic institutions in
Iraq follows the just peacemaking practice of spreading
democracy and human rights. Fourth, the plan called for food
and medicine to be delivered to the people of Iraq under the
protection of a U.N. force with a Security Council mandate.
Meeting these needs is part of the just peacemaking practice of supporting
just and sustainable economic growth.

The fifth point put forth by the church
leaders was that the United States should re-engage in efforts
for peace between Israel and Palestine. embodying the just
peacemaking practice of independent initiatives. The sixth
and final point was to recommit to international cooperation in
combating terrorism. Work with emerging cooperative forces in
the international system is a practice of just peacemaking.

These six alternatives now point the way to
increased international security and justice after the war. They
continue to point to the need for international cooperation in
carrying out a transition to a new government in Iraq and in the
struggle against terrorism. These just peacemaking commitments,
not unilateralist domination, are the way into a healthy and
secure future.

The ethic we need for a viable future is
not only an ethic of restraint in making war, but an ethic of
just peacemaking initiatives for preventing war and building a
future better than war after war, terrorism after terrorism. The
practices of just peacemaking have proven effective in preventing
wars in recent history. They are not merely ideals, but empirical
practices that make for peace. They point the way to winning the
debate - and winning the peace.

Related Stories

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

Sojourners Comment Community Covenant

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree, even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)